Be balkans

>be balkans
>be under ottoman control for 500+ years
>when time comes, kick the ottomans back to the middle east
>don't care about them anymore

>be african
>get colonised by some anglos and frogs for less than 100 years
>get decolonised because muh equality
>blame it for Africa being so shit
>mass migrate to the countries that colonised Africa

???

Other urls found in this thread:

ia600404.us.archive.org/28/items/CIAInAfrica/CIA in Africa .pdf
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

The circumstances behind these scenarios are different and you damn well know it, OP

>don't care about them anymore
Largely because they have each other to bitch about this time.

Balkanrapebabies are always a whiny bunch.

True, the anglos actually helped Africa evolve while the ottomans didn't do much for the Balkans.

...

>dont care about them anymore
lmao

>blame it for Africa being so shit
Africans blame their despotic leaders, not the West.

Off topic but :
ia600404.us.archive.org/28/items/CIAInAfrica/CIA in Africa .pdf

Expecting niggers to act logically
l u l

Only Bulgaria was under Ottoman control, and for the most part it was a good thing for the Balkans (from their perspective).
Today it might be fun to call people roaches and all, but Orthodox gypsies for example would've been wiped off of the fucking map by crazed Catholic bozgors had it not been for their pact with the Ottomans.
Alliance with the Ottoman empire meant religious freedom and some mild form of independence rather than cuckoldry for the Pope.
It would be very wrong to think that the Ottomans were this savage force that took the Balkans by force and turned everyone Islamic.

>don't care about them anymore

Well, the Ottomans were, effectively a European empire, and Balkans were its' provinces that were granted religious and national autonomy, which is quite different from colonialism.

Nonetheless, Balkans screech about every great power constantly and each others all the time.

don't drink the otto cool aid
They were utter and complete savages only held above animal kind by the converts they relied to run their murderstate.

I don't like Turks but I find it hard to believe that they were utter savages. The Mongols were, and we saw how short-lived their stay was.

>Only Bulgaria was under Ottoman control, and for the most part it was a good thing for the Balkans (from their perspective).
What am I reading

Am I wrong? Asking that seriously because I only viewed a TTC course on this. But from what I'm aware of the Turks controlled Bulgaria directly while Wallachia and other states were never under direct rule.

well, mongols are in the class of their own to be honest

The early Ottomans were the most enlightened and advanced empire by far. That's why they conquered so much and held it so effortlessly, while also BTFOing crusades left and right.

the ottomans controlled greece, bulgaria and serbia directly

It wasn't short lived at all. The Empire was so huge that it could not exist, but successor states lived on for hundreds of years.

Mongols weren't particularly cruel, too. It was the scale of it all, coupled with Genghis' wroth in one particular campaign.

What is Serbia, Bosnia and Greece you fucking faggot

Gypsyland was, in fact, the only Ottoman vassal state in Europe that wasn't integrated into a proper Ottoman administration.

Those Hungarian protestant suzerainties weren't a formal part of the Ottomans either.

He's right compare the shit left behind by Anglos to the things left behind by the Ottomans

>Only Bulgaria was under Ottoman control, and for the most part it was a good thing for the Balkans (from their perspective).
what

Niggers know they don't have a leg to stand on; they're just playing the victim for money. They wouldn't do it if it didn't work.

No, the Turks controlled cities in the Macedonian region and Epirus, not to mention Thrace, many islands and Constantinople. What they didn't directly control they payed locals to but sent plenty of Turks to live among locals. And they're generally not viewed as a good empire by the Balkanites, unless you're talking to Albanian/Bosniak/Pomak (crypto-turks). The revival of their nations and development began after the Greek Revolution. The Greeks had Bavarian monarchs who built athens overnight, British/American financers whovset afloat tgeir economy and French educated Greeks who shaped the constitution, the Bulgarians had Austrians who paved Sofia, the Serbs had their own monarch who imported Serbs from A-H to modernise Serbia, the Bosnians saw their first trams and institutes again because of Austria. The west brought in modernisation and industry with a proper tax system that helped their nations rise from the Ottoman industrial flop that left them backward and dangerous. Not to mention that the a Greeks alone had attempted around 30 revolutions before succeeding.

Pic related are the literacy rates in Yugoslavia in the 1930s, you can literally see the former border between Austria-Hungary and Ottoman empire. Of all the colonial empires, Ottoman empire was by far the most useless, they didn't develop literally anything.

Okay, now I want to ask a follow-up question and please answer as detailed as you can. Were things always that bad? From what you're saying the Ottomans made eastern Europe a hellhole, but were the Ottomans ever cool and progressive? Is there a dividing line between when the Ottomans went from good to bad? Or were they always a force for evil?

Evil isn't related to objective history

The Ottoman Empire was greatly organized and employed beneficial and groundbreaking policies and doctrines in 1400s.

They failed to modernise or address new challenges, and eventually decayed later.

The Ottoman Empire in it's earliest form, not only filled the power vacuum left by Byzantium, but also adopted mamy of their characteristics, some of which you would never think of. Unfortunately, a century after they conquer Constantinople, there is less empathy towards the local populations and adopting their culture. Mehmed II never managed to make his empire adopt the Roman identity and all Christians became second class citizens with the illusion of freedom, but suppressed in wealth, development and innovation, often taken advantage of by Turkish despotism and land owners who abused the Ottoman legal system. This had many christians flee into the mountains where they had true, absolute freedom, to avoid the Turks, devshirme and Jizya and instead, form guerrillas and bandit groups. Centuries later, the Ottomans had invested in a few anatolian cities, Thessaloniki and any balkan populations that fully adopted Turkish culture and islam, but failed to maintain any Byzantine heritage or culture outside Constantinople. Basically, preservation through neglect. The last straw was when they failed to industrialise and started randomly sending Albanians to raid and kill Greek villages suspected of rebellion. Pic related, a Zagorochori village in epirus that was built outside the knowledge of the Turks, therefore it's Greek inabitants, mostly bandits and clans, avoided any restrictions.

>Balkaners
>not constantly complaining about turks

what the fuck are you on?

he's talking about how people use colonialism to argue for mass migrations towards Europe when it was never like for any other Empire, Turkey being a good example

So it got progressively worse, is what you're saying...
>but also adopted mamy of their characteristics, some of which you would never think of
Like what?
Also, what do you think is the main reason for them lagging so much? Was it the culture? The religion? The politics? How could they remain so backwards when they could see what the Europeans were doing with their new tech? Wouldn't you have wanted, at least for your own benefit, to modernize a little?

>Wouldn't you have wanted, at least for your own benefit, to modernize a little?
Every Sultan (or minister) that cared tried to. But do you realize that modernising a huge fucking empire is fucking impossible, while you'd also be overthrown or assassinated if you stepped on too many toes of selfish noblemen and magnates?

This, several sultans got killed and reolaced by their siblings when they pissed off the janisaries too much.

>don't care about them anymore
I can tell you never been to the Balkans

>like what
The fez is "the hat of the romans", it was invented by the Byzantines. Food and music partly fused with what the Ottomans brought. Beliefs, such as the evil eye were known by commoners across the empire. Not to mention the obvious, Ottoman architecture owes a lot to Byzantium.
>what do you think is the main reason for them lagging so much?
Corruption, islamic extremism amongst common folk and sometimes sultans and despots often declaring jihad unnecessarily, poverty, but most of all laziness, they sat on some of the most grand ruins and beautiful landscaped in the world, governing Roman heritage, all they had to do was enjoy it and let it be, maybe maintain a few ports and the capital now and then.
They couldn't modernise even if they wanted to, they were too poor and most of their industry and business was owned and imported by foreigners and the affluent corrupt

Aren't the Balkans, historically and currently, kind of shit?

And weren't the Ottomans largely better masters than, say, Belgians?

And is slave trade really the same as mass migration?

No doubt, Africa is egregiously shit, for reasons that are both their own and the world's responsibility. But this is sort of a disingenuous post.